Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 306 posts

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#291

Post by yourapostasy »

fsloth wrote: post #287
yourapostasy wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions. See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering. See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life. A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective eut…

"Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts." Generally euthanasia is considered an ethical option when medicine can't help anymore, and any prolonging of life would either be useless (patient is braindead) or unable to mitigate the pain of the patient. Personally I think bringing economics in wil obfuscate the moral discussion.

In the US, officially-sanctioned euthanasia that I was personally acquainted with in a hospice took the form of death by dehydration and starvation. Both are barbaric, considered war crimes in a different context. In the case I was personally acquainted with, asphyxiation by rapid flooding of CO2 into the patient's airspace was prohibited.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#296

Post by norea-armozel »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #280
nommm-nommm wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the biggest critics of euthanasia are the disabled.

There's an unsettling undercurrent of thought in the disabled community: "What if society decides I'm more trouble than I'm worth?" Some of their opposition to legalized euthanasia probably comes from that, and some from religious motivation. Obviously neither justification is valid as a basis for making laws that apply to us all, but on the other hand, how do you tell them their concerns aren't worth listening to? S…

The fact that some doctors will readily offer it is also a concern. Without strict oversight to ensure patients aren't unduly affected by medical professionals in their choice is something that bothers me greatly. I'm all for euthanasia but it must be done in a way where the patient is of sound mind and knows there's alternatives to it like assisted living if the condition itself isn't fatal.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#297

Post by [deleted] »

Houshalter wrote: post #288
wcummings wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We produce vastly more food than we need Global warming could cause some nasty food shortages.

In the next few decades maybe. But population growth is a very long term issue. Over the next few centuries we will almost certainly solve or adapt to whatever issues global warming creates in the next few decades. Slightly decreasing or increasing the population will not make much difference.

[deleted]

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#298

Post by sinxoveretothex »

echelon wrote: post #261
joering2 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like your post, but before you will inspire few folks to visit some cancer fighting "non-profit" venture, it is important to look at cancer further then just those companies that are fighting it (but of course would never want to end it for good - I mean after all they have a lifetime mission (and salaries to pay), right?) You see, cancer was a tiny spot on radar just 50 years ago. Or 100 even more. So the question…

This is just so uneducated. Do you know how cancer biology works? Accumulated cell and nuclear damage from an endless assortment of factors cause cells to enter disease states. When certain errant states that regulate cell proliferation and apoptosis begin to accumulate, cell populations begin to drift into the cancer territory. The number one cause of cancer is life. There are accelerating factors in the environment…

I think you have to try to put yourself in the mind of someone who is receptive to conspiracy theories when replying to people like above.

What you said makes sense, but it is only convincing if you already trust the scientific institutions and believe in reductionism. And that, is unfortunately much less common than we would think.

The guy believes that there are poisons in everyday products, telling them that "damage from an endless assortment of factors cause cells to enter disease states" is not at all a refutation of their belief taken from their point of view. In fact, I expect that it even looks like weasel wording for exactly what they said from their point of view.

I think that on topics like this, it's important to expose the premises, the concrete basic facts much more than the conclusion, the general abstraction.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#299

Post by int_19h »

duaneb wrote: post #276
int_19h wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exhausting and pointless are obviously subjective. As for the environmental issues and being selfish, this doesn't have anything to do with how long you live, but rather with how you live. Obviously, a society with life expectation that is so long would have to reduce the birth rates substantially (or, rather, keep them the same in the births-per-lifetime department). But if you can do that, then there's no reason wh…

> You could say it's "selfish" to live one life where there could be ten, but how can one be selfish with respect to non-existing persons? It's more selfishly using the resources younger people can use. If you're eighty, I'd rather feed the eight year old. Until we move beyond resource constraints (lol) this is going to be a major effect of the rich being able to afford long lives AND food and the poor affording neit…

But what makes eighty special? Would you say the same thing about someone who was younger? "If you're forty, I'd rather feed the four year old"? If not, then why not?

The only objective metric I can think of is that today, 80 is usually not an age at which a person can do much. But if we have technology that lets you live much longer, and people at 80 would be physically like, say, 20-year-old today, that goes away.

And, of course, the number of young people "in the pipeline" can be regulated by controlling birth rates.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#300

Post by Practicality »

duaneb wrote: post #253
Practicality wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It entirely depends on whether or not the person lives selfishly for those 500 years. If they continue gaining and using experience they could be exceedingly productive. If they sit around doing nothing but eating and playing video games, that would be a waste.

Productive at what? All of this assumes some grand human plan you can work at. Thus far the vast majority of "productive" humans are "productively" burning through resources with little value: our burn rate is ALREADY crazy with an upper cap on age.

Furthering the cause of the existence of the human species, of course. What other goals are worth pursuing?
Post reply on HN